Before things get too serious I’d like to recommend myself for the position of personal homeopath to the President of the United States. Too many world leaders today and in the past have depended heavily on a personal savant, usually referred to as a homeopath, for this President in 2018-2024 to be without one.
For instance, the richest man of all time, and I think the competition for this title includes guys like Cresus, Midas and Jeff Bezos, is John D Rockefeller, 98, who from the day he was born to the day he died had a personal homeopath by his side! one of them being Mary Baker Eddy, the world’s richest woman, no lie.
The nobility of England and Europe have always had personal homeopathic physicians advising them, and this includes the current Queen of England, who ascribes a particular long life to homeopathy. And so why shouldn’t the current President of the United States have one too, and enjoy this boon?
Dr. John R. Benneth, Paris, 2016
As Donald Trump’s personal homeopath, my first suggestion would be to fire Mike Pense and replace him with Michael Avenatti. .2) suggest that the President divorce Melania and make Stormy Daniels First Lady and an honest woman. Then he could relax, all his troubles would go away, the world would be in good hands and he could take a nice long vacation . . or not, see what happens.
TWO LITTLE WORDS
Q: What Reprieve,
Do You Expect,
A: pardon me,
if this isn’t the way
two little words
is all I can say
Q: How long do you Object to the Remanent Wave?
A Minute a Day
A Fortnight a Year?
A Lengthening Stay
A Decade, I Fear?
But never to those who would make it their slave.
Too little words
a torturous fast
two little words
left us aghast
The centuries laden
with millennia past
on time at last.
Too little words a torturous fast two little words left us aghast
A Sudden Bromide by John
If you’re tortured by the thought that homeopathy doesn’t work because “there is not one molecule of anything but water in it,” please allow me to lance that boil and burst the null of your hypothesis in two little words . .
It’s a recognized fact that there’s been too many words arguing over what it is clinically, and too little explaining what homeopathy is physically.
Drum roll please: Ladies and gentlemen, in keeping with the homeopathic maxim of like cures like, I am here today with two little words, when uttered, will magically crack the dam of settled science for those who have a thirst for medical genius, like Hahnemann’s, the First Homeopath, or for those who were treated by him to flower their genius, such as exemplified by Mary Baker Eddy, a 19th century American homeopath who published the first text on curative healing, founded a major religion and widespread international newspaper, and became the richest woman on Earth, to incur the wrath of literary genius and intuitional homeopath Mark Twain, author of the first great American novel and the most quoted man in the world today, living or dead. Twain said that what he called Eddyism, at its current rate of growth, would overtake Congress in 30 years, that’s how popular Christian Science was; or the son of a pill peddler, John D Rockefeller, who, when adjusting for inflation, became the richest man to have ever lived; or Charles Darwin, who became the progenitor of Atheist Science after he was cured of a debilitating illness and his genius awakened by Dr, Manford Gully, MD, a homeopath!
I speak of people who became part of a chain reaction triggered by Hahnemann, inside of them, an electric fractal, an electromagnetic nudge . . I’m going to give you two little words that can trigger the same kind of reaction in you that was experienced by Eddie, Twain, Darwin, and Rockefeller
It may cause you to see something you haven’t seen before, to do something you previously thought you were incapable of.
Those two little words are TRITIUM OXIDE.
Tritium oxide is irradiated water. It can be detected throughout the electromagnetic spectrum from . . thermolumonescence to beta radiation.
Here’s a little note from Rolland Conte, the glow and grow chain reaction in homeopathic solutions:
“Tritium creation in homoeopathic solutions has been measured. Initially, the radioactivity of these solutions was
Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution
It should be noted here who Rolland Conte was. Rolland Conte was a renowned French statistician married to Madeleine Conte, who was the director of the French nuclear safety commission. Using beta scintillation and nuclear magnetic resonance, Rolland Conte and his team of Yves Lasne, Gabriel Vernot and Henri Berliocchi, made a comprehensive study of the physics of the homeopathic remedy. What he discovered was evidence of a nuclear reaction in the homeopathic remedy, and measured it.
The Conteans dubbed the nano bubble cavitation they discovered and seen by other investigators (Roy) as “white holes”, what appears to me to be ball plasma discharging. Radiation coming out of the homeopathic solution they called “the remanent wave.” (See photo above)
This should trigger a question in your mind, where is this energy, this radiation in the homeopathic solution coming from? Where is the fuel stoking this fire? It’s reciting a common aphorism to say “where there’s smoke there’s fire,” so where there’s fire there’s got to be something for it to burn, right?
We have detected radiation coming out of it, so would it be safe to assume there should be radiation going into it?
What if you had a child’s intellect and needed still to cling to Santa Claus? It would be easy enough to say hydrogen and oxygen, the two elemental ingredients of water, are both highly flammable, should blow up in your face when prodded to do so. But no. Here at a time when we are being pried loose from Santa Claus, settled science desperately disavows us of a gift from above bearing hydrogen and its human potential, our notions that hydrogen and oxygen atoms can so easily be pried apart . . disavowed! . . that it would take more energy to unleash them then we would get quid pro quo! . . and blah blah blah denial.
The updated answer to this is that modern-day physicists like Stanford’s William Tiller say there is enough energy in a single hydrogen atom to detonate something short of Creation . . if it is focused . . they say.
Well, I don’t know about that, except to admit that somewhere there is a fractal involved, which I’ll get to later. For now let me direct your attention to this: Like most nuclear weapons, the explosive power of the single hydrogen atom is best used when not used for anything at all. And so it is here. There is a more conventional explanation to where energy in the homeopathic remedy is coming from, an answer that satisfies the most desperate craving and measures the question metrically. This can be explained using conventional weapons, which I will do in the following:
NEXT: Why Homeopathic Remedies Glow
FURTHER ON: The Homeopathic Fractal
In a message on the Minutus homeopathy discussion list dated 8/29/2013 2:34:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD writes:
“Dr. Jurgen Schulte is a physicist, quantum physicist and homeopath.
“At the 2012 Brisbane conference, he gave a talk about quantum physics and homeopathy, where he described in detail the experiments he performed to explain the mechanism of action through quantum physics. The conclusion was that he could not, the experiments were inconclusive.”
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. “The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind”.
Joe, what has quantum physics explained? Not anything that I can think of . . at the moment. It’s raised some very interesting anomalies, like entanglement, but I suspect they may have made it seem inexplicable.
Regarding Scholten, isn’t he known for his periodic table of supramoleculars? Can they really can’t be considered as legitimate homeopathics until they’re properly proven? It is sort of like Colin Griffith and his dream provers in “The New Materia Medica,” taking a detour around the lengthy, hard work of proving.
Where were Scholten’s physical “experiments” published? What were they? What was he testing for and why, for what purpose? There have been numerous pre-clinical tests of supramoleculars that show their physical distinctions and biochemical action that I believe can be explained in the terms of classical science, although I don’t know anymore where the line is drawn between classical and quantum science.
You say he’s a physicist AND a “quantum” physicist? Why should there be any difference between the two? Does a physicist stop reading when he runs into the word quantum?
So really, what does it mean when he says he doesn’t know? Why should that come as a surprise?
So far, I’m not too impressed with physicists. They seem to be very good at creating messes and entirely incompetent at cleaning them up. Hanford in Washington State USA is a prime example, so is Cherynoble, so is Fukishima, and hundreds of other disasters around the planet that will eventually happen unless somebody figures out how to undo what they did, and homeopathy offers the only solution I can think of . . [!]
From what I’ve seen, physics is an unmitigated disaster, like little children lighting matches and playing with fire, indoors, under the drapes. If the human race disappears from the face of the planet, it will be because of physicists who made it and homeopaths who failed to clean it up.
Physicists do the crime, homeopaths do the time.
What surprises me is how little they seem to know about classical science and reality in general, and nuclear physics in particular. From what I’ve seen they can’t ask questions and can’t even say how they got home last night.
Homeopathy doesn’t need quantum physics to explain it. I think homeopathy can be explained by piecing together the physical experiments that have been done with the known classical science of the material and plasma sciences, and sp[ecifically the sciences regarding water . As Professor Rustum Roy, head of Penn State’s material sciences said, its up to the skeptics to disprove homeopathy:
“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent. The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”
The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations Online 5 77
You have to read what’s next: Heavy Water! Transduction and Homeopathy
Read it here first: SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal . . do it now!
The following is from a discussion of the physics of homeopathy subscribers to the Minutus homeopathy email list
To: minutus Homeopathy discussion
From: Jeff Tikari
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:44:28 +0530
Subject: [Minutus] Homeopathic Hydrosomes
For remedies potentised beyond Avogadro’s limit.
Active principles of potentized drugs are MOLECULAR IMPRINTS or HYDROSOMES, which are nanocavities engraved into water-ethyl alcohol supramolecular matrix through a peculiar process called POTENTIZATION. Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers.
All potentized drugs contain diverse types of molecular imprints representing the diverse types of individual constituent molecules which are part of a drug substance used for potentization. By acting as ‘artificial key holes’, these individual molecular imprints can bind to specific pathogenic molecules that have the same conformational affinity; thereby relieving biological molecules from pathological inhibitions that they are subjected to in diseased conditions. This is exactly the biological mechanism of homeopathic cure.
In a message dated 8/27/2013 9:45:27 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
Roger Bird writes:
Jeff, I love you. I appreciate your efforts. I want you to be happy. But I had trouble getting past the first two sentences because I was LOLing. What you said may even be true. But it won’t cut no ice with skeptics or ANY other materialistically oriented scientist or fan of science or even the general public. They are all going to say that it is nonsense and gibberish.
Since I believe you, sort of, I assume that such ‘imprints’ are how the etheric or transcendental energy of the homeopathic remedy stays connected to the water.
I’m sorry, I tried to read you comment again and burst out laughing. You have to say stuff that people can relate to. You can’t describe things that are on top of things that are made up of things all of which haven’t even been proven, accepted, or understood yet. It would be like trying to describe how to use the gmai l app on your android phone to Alexander Graham Bell. Bell might have been a brilliant scientist, but he would have been utterly lost the moment you said any of the words that I used to tell you what my example was going to be.
I live on both sides of my brain. I am a jack of many arenas of thought and the master of only one: philosophy. I frequent several physics forums and can understand most of what they say. So it is easy for me to know what the skeptics are going to think and say.
Are we still friends? I hope so. (:->)
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:20 PM, John Benneth wrote:
I applaud Jeff Tikari for posting Nambiar’s work. Obviously you have very little understanding of science and even less of supramolecular chemistry. Material scientists with academic credentials of the highest orders have described the distinctions between the supramolecular materials used as medicine in homeopathy and their inert vehicles in a way that supports part of what Chandran Nambiar has described here (see Roy, The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy, Materials Research, 2005).
As early as Hahnemann, it was thought that [homeopathic remedies] “cannot be apprehended by specious a priori sophistry, or from the smell, taste, or appearance of the medicines, or from chemical analysis, or by treating disease with one or more of them in a mixture (prescription).” (Hahnemann, The Organon of Medicine, 6th edition)
But even though 19th century science did not afford the necessary terms, instrumentation and theory needed to explain the action of homeopathic action, Hahnemann’s opinion that it was a magnetic phenomenon still holds up under today’s tools.
Nambiar’s keyhole theory aside, magnetic imprinting fits both the observations by Benveniste and Montagnier and the structural analysis by Anagnostatos, Demangeat, Conte et al, Roy et al, and others . . and the orthodox literature on water.
Imprinting by H2O protic polarization around pneumatic cavitation was first described by Barnard when NMR analysis of supramolecular “homeopathic medicines” by Smith and Boericke at Hahnemann College in the ’60’s showed structural differences from their vehicles.
Whereas Nambiar’s “hydrosome” is probably a misnomer for hydrozoan and should be replaced by ‘clathrate’ and the pathogenic molecule binding to artificial keyholes appears to be his invention (which I don’t agree with) I could be wrong. Nambiar’s work reveals an admirable effort to explain the liquid aqueous structuring in homeopathic supramoleculars and their biological action, all in the teeth of ridicule. I believe he is also right in stating that “Potentization actually involves ‘host-guest’ molecular interactions exactly similar to that which is commonly utilized by polymer chemists in preparing molecular imprinted polymers. The only difference is, homeopathy uses water-ethyl alcohol mixture as the imprinting medium, whereas polymer chemists use polymers” except to note that water and alcohol are both polymeric substances that exhibit crystalline properties, and homeopaths have appeared to have unintentionally solved the problem of polymorphic transmogrification that has played havoc with the pharmaceutical industry. Conventional science has been slow to unable to borrow anything from homeopathy technology, not because of material discrepancies but because it would give credibility to a competing medical doctrine that has yet to be syndicalized by intellectual property rights..
So . . this is an extremely difficult subject involving pitfalls, egos and misnomers. If you don’t understand words LOOK THEM UP instead of just calling them technobabble. If you don’t understand something, ask questions. In ridiculing the investigation you are trolling, dissuading people from a delicate but necessary discussion that is of key importance to medicine, and making an eventual fool of yourself instead of your target.
So give everybody, including yourself, a break, why don’t you? Trying to please “skeptics,” i.e. jealouis blowhards, doesn’t move anything forward.
In a message dated 8/28/2013 10:19:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Elham writes:
Don’t want to be rude or anything but if you ever think a Homoeopath is going to solve the mystery of potentization you are mistaken. We will use its powers and let the skeptics shout and yell at us as much as they like, but we won’t solve its mystery. It will need science to advance much more and technology to advance much more and then there might be a slight chance that a scientist might come up with some explanation. In the meanwhile let us continue with our work that is curing the sick and let others worry about how Homoeopathy works.
NEXT: Physics of Homeopathy Dialectic continues with the RESPONSE TO ELHAM
Don’t miss the next installment of this paradigm shifting discussion on the physics of homeopathy. It’s easy to SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal, your only source for revelations by the Great Genius.
SUBSCRIBE NOW and help us meet our goal of 10,000 subscribers . .
Now I know it doesn’t sound quite right. To some it may even sound pretty stupid. To others . . crazy. And yet still to others a fraudulent pitch, and to new, enlightened old souls the dangerous, cold truth.
There are certainly more sophisticated ways of saying it, but you must concede, none quite so tantalizing and none quite so succinct . . or true.
And when you really put y0ur nose into it, study it, think about it . . it makes perfect sense.
Diseases are radio transmissions.
There are different ways of saying it. I once got Skeptic magazine publisher Michael Shermer on the phone to ask him where he was getting the ridiculous crap he was publishing about homeopathy in the Skeptics Dictionary, and would he be interested in seeing what the material sciences were saying, and he agreed. But when I touched on the physico-chemical composition of the remedy, he fired back, “What is it?”
I knew what he was asking me, but to paraphase his question to be more explicit, he wanted to know what was the identifiable mechanism of the homeopathic remedy.
It’s a fair question, and supra to me I don’t know the homeopath who could answer it.
But what I fired back at him is “it’s radioactive.”
I think he spit his teeth out.
Now I know calling homeopathic remedies “radioactive” isn’t the best thing politically to say, but I’ll hang by it, committedly as well as Messianically. The pro-homeopaths don’t want “radioactive” to be the answer, and the anti-homeopaths don’t want any answer at all, at least not one that makes sense.
But its not so tough to concede that matter is basically nothing more than intermolecular forces, energy pretending to be intransigent. We know by our Geiger counters and beta scintillators that matter gives off a signal. What we don’t seem to know, or want to know, is that the material signal, its radioactivity, can be replicated with hydrogen bonded oxygen atoms to form liquid aqueous structures that replicate the matter from which they came, and which in turn projects a a unique eletromagnetic signal (radiation) representative of the matter from which the polymorphic aqueous structure.
This is a new biological model for medicine. It is a model that has been in the works now for 200 hundred years, and I’m so happy to be able to humbly unveil it for you here today.
The discussion of homeopathy has shown little recognition of the literature ’til now. But once encountered, only the self deluded can conclude that the effects of supramolecular medicine, as used in homeopathy, are purely psychogenic. (1)
This is a real word, not a misspelling of ‘supermolecular.’ It is not often seen . . yet. Supramolecular means “beyond the molecule,” any organized system of two or more molecules held together by intermolecular forces. Even homeopathy’s most strident critics must concede that the word supramolecular is definitive for the homeopathic remedy, as they are always talking about Avogadro’s Constant, where the intended solute has dropped out because the solution has gone beyond the molecular limit of dilution.
Supramolecular chemistry is the study of chemical systems made up of a discrete number of assembled molecular subunits or components. Hahnemann, as revealed in the quote towards the end of this article, knew that the mechanism of the remedy was essentially intramagnetic. He simply lacked more precise definitions at the time to describe it. Putative science had to catch up.
So technically then, that’s what it is, that’s the description of the homeopathic remedy. The next question pertaining to thatthen is, how do we know that a solution is supramolecular?
Can dilutions beyond Avogadro be physically identified?
MATERIAL SCIENCES CONFIRM
A review of the material science literature relevant to homeopathy and the memory of water was co-authored in 2007 by four top American material scientists. They were led by one of the most decorated and respected scientists of our time, Prof. Rustum Roy of Penn State University (2)
Roy’s landmark paper asserts that the claim there is no difference in composition between a homeopathic remedy and the pure water used in it is “wholly incorrect.” (2)
Just as in law, in science the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. Roy says “The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent (2).
THEY CAN’T PROVE IT!
Of course, critics can’t prove there is no difference because Roy proved there was (3).
In 2007 Wittreleased a landmark review of a more than half century of biochemical tests of homeopathy (4).
Critics have tried to dismiss this review through Witt’s statement that “No positive result was stable enough to be reproduced by all investigators.”
Critics always leave out the preceding statement, hoping no one will notice: “Even experiments with a high methodological standard could demonstrate an effect of high potencies.”
Consider for a moment, if the STABLE standard of effectiveness critics howl for homeopathy were demanded of allopathic drugs, there wouldn’t be any!
Where are these strident critics of homeopathy when daily we hear of untested allopathic drugs causing death and harm?
This is why homeopathics are U.S. FDA approved and accepted by the U.K.’s NHS.
But wait, there’s more! In 2009 the pseudo scientists were set back on their heels with a stunning blow from one of the world’s highest medical authorities when an odd study was released by a Nobel laureate virologist (5)
Luc Montagnier’s extraordinary work claimed that substances of the type use in homeopathy, bassed on what seemed to be nothing more than pure water were actually physically identifiable and emitted a seemingly impossible electromagnetic (EM) signal starting at 1 kH. Even more startling, this strange water was able to form similar liquid aqueous structures mimicking bacterial DNA that were inadvertently transmitted, like radio, without physical contact, to SEPARATE CONTAINERS of water!
If you throw this on top of the materia media, it makes a pretty big heap of evidence for the biological action of the remedy.
This will take some time for the world to assimilate. It confirms what immunologist and homeopathy investigator Jacques Benveniste announced in his notorious lecture at the Cavendish where he announced the EM paradigm for disease (6).
Benveniste/Montagnier conclusion: DISEASES ARE RADIO TRANSMISSIONS
The 21st century handwriting is written on the monitor. There is now no turning back for science from the new evidence for homeopathy.
HOLY GRAIL OF MEDICINE
Roy, for example, defers to Prof. Martin Chaplin of London Southbank University as “the guru of water.” In his June 2010 article on the memory of water, Prof. Chaplin writes, “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” (6)
This is the most important statement of our age, relevant to medicine.
Polymorphic structural and electromagnetic evidence for the action of high dilutes in the 21st century bears witness to similar concordant speculations by the founder of homoeopathy in the 19th:
“The steel needle itself becomes magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetizes other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowed previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small pox or measles communicates to a near, untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small pox or measles, that is, infects at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of going to the one to be infected. Purely specific, conceptual influences from one child to another small pox or measles works in the same way the magnet communicates to a nearby needle its magnetic properties. (8)
THE GRAND DELUSION
If homeopathy is a delusion, then it is a grand one tricking governments and countless medical doctors and their patients alike. If it is not, and most assuredly it is not, then the delusion belongs to its critics!
(If you can’t accept this you have a serious problem with cognitive dissonance.)
The evidence all leads down the same old dusty corridor to the assizes: If a case could be made for homeopathy being fraud, it would have been made in courts of law long ago.
Now, with new support from the material sciences, the case for ending the practice of homeopathy is dead.
Now, with search engines and PUBMED, the evidence is perspicuous.
THE END OF ALLOPATHY
The card house of traditional overdosing with synthetic chemicals by allopathic “medical” dinosaurs is collapsing under the increasing gravity of supramolecular EM medicine.
Say goodbye to the old chemo-medical paradigm. Say hello to the new curative medicine: Homeopathy.
The John Benneth Journal, October 14th, 2011.
Tough problem? Seen it all, physical, mental.
Call for free homeopathic consultation 503 819 7777
Science and Health with Key to the Materia Medica,
by John Robert Benneth
Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, saw the connection between Mesmerism, spiritual healing and homeopathy.
This may come as a surprise to many. It may be troubling to some, revelatory to others, but in the United States, homeopathy is regarded, in at least one state, as a religious practice exempt from laws normal regulatory laws.
This is a difficult subject to write about, hard to articulate . It isn’t to destroy Christian Science, it’s here to enlighten it as there are some conundrums which need unravelling.
I don’t know about other states, but in Oregon, homeopathy is defined as a spiritual practice and therefore has an exemption from regulation or restriction by rules that would normally restrict the use of homeopathic drugs to naturopaths and other physicians.
Here is the wording:
ORS 685.010 Definitions. As used in this chapter: “Drugs” includes: (a) Substances recognized as drugs in the official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States
ORS 685.030 Application of Chapter 685 — Naturopaths 2009 EDITION
(2) “Drugs” includes:
(a) Substances recognized as drugs in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official National Formulary, official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, other drug compendium or any supplement to any of them; (1) This chapter does not apply to any Christian Scientist or other person who by religious or spiritual means endeavors to prevent or cure disease or suffering in accord with the tenets of any church.
It could be argued that homeopathy cannot be construed as religious or spiritual healing. The response to that is that it certainly can be regarded as such, as the official Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States is only a compendium of labelled intentionsnot a chemical or physical identification of such. Allopathic pharmacopoeia are catalogs of patent medicines, they can be identified chemically, wehreas homeopathic, or perjhaps more technically, supramolecular medicines to date have no such convention.
The Oregon statute specifically names it and Christian Science in its seminal religiouis text “Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures specifically describes the use of homeopathy as spiritual. The religion of homeopathy is Christian Science, a late 19th century religion known for its spiritual healing, inspired and founded by Mary Baker Eddy, a practicing homeopath who was married to a homeopath, Dr. Daniel Patterson, and had an adopted son who was also a homeopath, Dr. Ebenezer Foster Eddy.
At one time, Foster-Eddy, who was adopted by Mrs. Eddy at the age of 41, the same age at which Mrs. Eddy had her transformative healing, became the second most powerful figure in the church.
She studied under the renowned American Mesrmerist and spiritual healer, Phineas Quimby.
She discusses homeopathy in the Christian Science text book, describing it as a form of spiritually curative medicine that demonstrates the principles of spiritual healing.
Mary Baker Eddy establishes homeopathy as a spiritual practice.
In Science and Health she describes how homeopathy demonstrates spiritual healing. In the church manual cases of serious diseases treated with homeopathy are discussed. The homeopathic remedies used to successfully treat them with are named. Procedures and processes particular to homoeopathy, such as homeopathic aggravation, the use of placebos, the use of mental symptoms in diagnosis of disease, the absence of the intended orthomolecular matter in homeopathic remedies, how potency increases with dilution are taught. The homeopathic materia medica used as a reference book is Jahr.
The use of similars in homeopathy, the effects of homeopathic remedies on the mind and how homeopathy provides for an understanding of spiritual healing is explained in Christian Science.
Homeopathy is the inspiration of Christian Science.
The religion is explicitly free from Oregon laws regulating the practice of homeopathy.
The founder was was well steeped in it. Mrs. Eddy’s first husband, Dr. Daniel Patterson, was a homeopath. The church manual, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, gives examples of cases cured by her and the remedies she used to cure them with.
Collecting the references from her book of revelations, one can see that homoeopathy is what she took to be evidence of the power of mind over matter, that healing is essentially spiritual.
Science and Health says of Mrs. Eddy,
“Her experiments in homoeopathy had made her skeptical as to material curative methods. Jahr, from Aconitum to Zincum oxydatum, enumerates the general symptoms, the characteristic signs, which demand different remedies; but the drug is frequently attenuated to such a degree that not a vestige of it remains. Thus we learn that it is not the drug which expels the disease or changes one of the symptoms of disease.” Eddy, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures,
Eddy explicitly credits homoeopathy for making her skeptical of allopathy in the use of material methods to heal. She mentions one of Hahnemann’s closest disciples, Georg Jahr, as her reference work in homoeopathy, and states that not a vestige of a drug remains in a homeopathic remedy.
This can be taken to mean that none of the original intended matter is left in the homeopathic solution.
“The author has attenuated Natrum muriaticum (common table-salt) until there was not a single saline property left. The salt had “lost his savour;” and yet, with one drop of that attenuation in a goblet of water, and a teaspoonful of the water administered at intervals of three hours, she has cured a patient sinking in the last stage of typhoid fever. The highest attenuation of homoeopathy and the most potent rises above matter into mind.
“This discovery leads to more light. From it may be learned that either human faith or the divine Mind is the healer and that there is no efficacy in a drug.
“You say a boil is painful; but that is impossible, for matter without mind is not painful.
The boil simply manifests, through inflammation and swelling, a belief in pain, and this belief is called a boil. Now administer mentally to your patient a high attenuation of truth, and it will soon cure the boil. The fact that pain cannot exist where there is no mortal mind to feel it is a proof that this so-called mind makes its own pain — that is, its own belief in pain.”
“Homoeopathy diminishes the drug, but the potency of the medicine increases as the drug disappears.”
She then presents rhetorical questions, questions not easily answered.
“Vegetarianism, homoeopathy, and hydropathy have diminished drugging; but if drugs are an antidote to disease, why lessen the antidote? If drugs are good things, is it safe to say that the less in quantity you have of them the better? If drugs possess intrinsic virtues or intelligent curative qualities, these qualities must be mental. Who named drugs, and what made them good or bad for mortals, beneficial or injurious?
A Terrible Case
“A case of dropsy, given up by the faculty, fell into my hands. It was a terrible case. Tapping had been employed, and yet, as she lay in her bed, the patient looked like a barrel. I prescribed the fourth attenuation of Argentum nitratum with occasional doses of a high attenuation of Sulphuris. She improved perceptibly. Believing then somewhat in the ordinary theories of medical practice, and learning that her former physician had prescribed these remedies, I began to fear an aggravation of symptoms from their prolonged use, and told the patient so; but she was unwilling to give up the medicine while she was recovering. It then occurred to me to give her unmedicated pellets and watch the result. I did so, and she continued to gain. Finally she said that she would give up her medicine for one day, and risk the effects. After trying this, she informed me that she could get along two days without globules; but on the third day she again suffered, and was relieved by taking them. She went on in this way, taking the unmedicated pellets, — and receiving occasional visits from me, — but employing no other means, and she was cured.
Chapter Six, Science, Theology and Medicine, S&H, p. 156
In the next paragraph, Mrs. Eddy presents homeopathy as the preceding step to metaphysics.
“Metaphysics, as taught in Christian Science, is the next stately step beyond homoeopathy. In metaphysics, matter disappears from the remedy entirely, and Mind takes its rightful and supreme place. Homoeopathy takes mental symptoms largely into consideration in its diagnosis of disease. Christian Science deals wholly with the mental cause in judging and destroying disease. It succeeds where homoeopathy fails, solely because its one recognized Principle of healing is Mind, and the whole force of the mental element is employed through the Science of Mind, which never shares its rights with inanimate matter.
Mrs. Eddy is presenting the argument here that homeopathy is the learned progression of metaphysics. Modern science is now discovering the physical mechanisms of homeopathy and are describing them in scientific terms similar to metaphysical terms.
Amongst other meanings meta means “beyond. ” Recently the description of the operative mechanism of homeopathy has been identified as “supramolecular” (Demangeat, Montagnier, Roy). Supra also means beyond, referring to intermolecular forces.
Professor Rustum Roy, the late professor emeritus of the material sciences at Pennsylvania State University, and one of the world’s most decorated and highly respected scientists, has made a particular point of addressing the role structure plays in giving matter its particular qualities: The same material element can have entirely different properties due to the arrangement of its molecules. His prime example is a diamond, one of the hardest elements, and graphite, one of the softest; yet both substances are made of pure Carbon.
Roy uses this example to illustrate the polymorphic qualities of homeoapthic remedies, which are made with water.
He talks about how a mere refrigerator magnet can change the pH of water.
ROY: “What got me interested in this field,” says Roy, referring to a Power Point slide of Raman spectroscopy, showing the psychokinetic effects of Dr. Yan Xin, a physician of the Chinese Traditional Medicine Research Institute of Chongqing, China on the pH of water at a distance (http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/yanxin.html), “was this particular figure. This is the Qi Gong master Yan Xin, who I know rather well. He was a personal physician to Deng Tsao Peng, the Prime Minister of China for many, many years, he was changing the water from seven kilometers, or even 2,000 kilometers, 6,000 kilometers away, San Fransisco to Beijing. And so look at the difference now between the left and the top and the bottom left. Is that a change or what in the Raman signal . . I should, Holy Cow, either this guy is drawing them in and making them up, but the person doing this was the head of the physics dept at Singh Hwa.”
CALLER: “He is changing the water by sending qi energy?”
ROY: He is sending qi energy from a distance. He first did it at seven kilometers away, and never in the same room, and then he did it cross town, San Fran to Beijing, and so on, so it is really . . I want to go into more detail, so is water that changeable, intention, these are relatively weak vectors, if you could do that, now I don’t know, I just assume that nobody’s cheating here, and I said that is certainly very interesting.”
How Homeopathy Works, video, 43:30, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU5ukds8G8o
“What is very fascinating with Dr. Yan Xin’s work, is that he is using modern scientific methods and tools to prove (to the Western mind) that the focusing of chi onto substance such as DNA can be measured. Besides conducting studies, he has given Chi-Emitting Lectures to millions of people. In these lectures, he sends out healing energy to the audience, in which people may be healed of an affliction, and he teaches them a form of meditation in which they can learn to heal themselves.” http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/yanxin.html
Marry Baker Eddy writes,
“Homoeopathy mentalizes a drug with such repetition of thought-attenuations, that the drug becomes more like the human mind than the substratum of this so-called mind, which we call matter; and the drug’s power of action is proportionately increased.”
In 1896, psychologist Frank H. Randall, in his book “Mesmerism, Hypnotism and Thought Reading,” writes on how to magnetize water. It is strangely resonant with what Roy observes of Yan Xin’s ability to restructure water psychokinetically:
“How to magnetise water: Procure a tumbler fresh water, hold it in the palm of the left hand that the fingers extend round and in contact with the vessel, concentrate the fingers of the right hand to a focus inside the the tumbler, either below the surface of the water, or just above it. Gather from your patient and seat of his disease, that you may dispensator magnetism into the water accordingly, strongly will your patient’s relief, using the utmost energy of your mind to force the magnetic fluid through the finger tips. Continue this concentration for a few minutes; breathe and make a few passes over the glass, then hand it to your patient; request him to drink as much as he can without discomforting himself.”
Mrs. Eddy writes,
“Evidences of progress and of spiritualization greet us on every hand. Drug-systems are quitting their hold on matter and so letting in matter’s higher stratum, mortal mind. Homoeopathy, a step in advance of allopathy, is doing this. Matter is going out of medicine; and mortal mind, of a higher attenuation than the drug, is governing the pellet.”
“Homoeopathy furnishes the evidence to the senses, that symptoms, which might be produced by a certain drug, are removed by using the same drug which might cause the symptoms. This confirms my theory that faith in the drug is the sole factor in the cure. The effect, which mortal mind produces through one belief, it removes through an opposite belief, but it uses the same medicine in both cases.
All o these people quoted here are speaking of a biomagnetic force that an be manipulate directly by human operators, or indirectly, in homeopathy, through the process of dilution and succussion.
Mesmerism, contrary to much popular opinion that it is synonymous with hypnotism and is induced merely by suggestion. But this is not the case. Mesmerism is the manipulation of silent forces to induce altered states, both physical and mental.
Homeopathy shares with Mesmerism this same quality, and it is interesting to see that investigators seem to be brushing against the same biomagnetic connection.
The founder of homeopathy, Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, MD, is no exception:
“I find it yet necessary to allude here to ANIMAL MAGNETISM, as it is termed, or rather MESMERISM (as it should be called in deference to Mesmer, its first founder) which differs so much in its nature from all other therapeutic agents
“This curative force, often so stupidly denied and disdained for a century, acts in different ways
“It is a marvelous, priceless gift of God to mankind by means of which the strong will of a well intentioned person upon a sick one by contact and even without this and even at some distance, can bring the vital energy of the healthy mesmeriser endowed with this power into another person dynamically (just as one of the poles of a powerful magnetic rod upon a bar of steel)
“It acts in part by replacing in the sick whose vital force within the organism is deficient here and there, in part also in other parts where the vital force has accumulated too much and keeps up irritating nervous disorders it turns it aside, diminishes and distributes it equally and in general extinguishes the morbid condition of the life principle of the patient and substitutes in its place the normal of the mesmerist acting powerfully upon him, for instance, old ulcers, amaurosis, paralysis of single organs and so forth
“Many rapid apparent cures performed in all ages, by mesmerizers endowed with great natural power, belong to this class
“The effect of communicated human power upon the whole human organism was most brilliantly shown, in the resuscitation of persons who had lain some time apparently dead, by the most powerful sympathetic will of a man in full vigor of vital energy,(166) and of this kind of resurrection history records many undeniable examples
“If the mesmerizing person of either sex capable at the same time of a good-natured enthusiasm (even its degeneration into bigotry, fanaticism, mysticism or philanthropic dreaming) will be empowered all the more with this philanthropic self-sacrificing performance to direct exclusively the power of his commanding good will to the recipient requiring his help and at the same time to concentrate these, he may at times perform apparent miracles
“Notes related to the aphorism –  Especially of one of such persons, of whom there are not many, who, along with great kindness of disposition and perfect bodily powers, possesses but A VERY MODERATE DESIRE FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, which it would give him very little trouble wholly to suppress, in whom, consequently, all the fine vital spirits that would otherwise be employed in the preparation of the semen, are ready to be communicated to others, by touching them and powerfully exerting the will
“Some powerful mesmerisers, with whom I have become acquainted, had ALL this peculiar character.” Hahnemann, The Organon of Medicine, aphorism 288
Hahnemann, a professional translator who spoke a ozen languages, was one of the most educated chemists of his day. He had little time for mummery or mysticism, as his critics would love to portray him.
Such was also the case with Anton Mesmer, also an MD. These people, like Roy are presenting their world view because of what they experienced, and although it doesn’t fit the putative paradigm, in the face of ridicule, defamation andattack, they report it fearlessly.
In the past, science has fled in the face of this evidence. And so, as in the case of Christian Science, it has retreated into religion, as a spiritual practice. Mrs. Eddy did not have the benefit of modern supramolecular chemistry that studies intermolecular forces and tries to explain them.
Homeopathy is staying abreast of sceince inthi regard. The material sciences have cave in on the memory o water argument and are now admitting that water, in regard to its solutes, can indeed retain a memory.
Like a domestic spat, or like any argument at all, where one side is being held to account for some nasty business, and violently changes the subject . . so it is when homeopathy holds allopathy to account for genocide.
Man oh man
I’ve never seen such traffic in all my days. I was about to write that yesterdays numbers were the highest ever, ten times that of my most highly viewed blog, one of the most viewed blogs on WordPress — but today’s has already broken that record.
I’m a star, just like mama used to say.
Fire PZ Myers, in one and a half days garnered over 17,000 views. But judging from the commentary, only a few really bothered to read it. They wrote mostly obscenities for commentary. If someone did ask a question, it was a leading one, or a question that was already answered in the article. Or it was complaining about their obscenities in previous commentaries not being published, and then complaints that their complaints weren‘t being published, etc. etc.
But every now and then a gem appeared, like something from Kaviraj, what for him is a scrap, what for the rest of us is a meal.
It just proves my point, that that the only intelligent commentary is coming from the homeopaths, and all the idiocy from the allopaths.
Let me give you a profound demonstration of what I say.
The allopaths say there’s nothing to homeopathy, that it’s a placebo. Of course they don’t define what they mean by placebo, they don’t show any tests that prove placebo either. The next thing we hear from these whiz kids is how powerful the Placebo Effect is. SO does that mean that homeopath , compared to placebo, is powerful medicine? LOL!
The next tact from these acolytes of scientism is to fire off another broadside from the other side of their sinking ship, like “there‘s no science to back it up.”
Okay, so when we show them some clinical trials they say, “they weren’t properly double blinded.”
Okay, so when we show them clinical tests that were double blinded, they say “it wasn’t published in a peer reviewed magazine.”
Okay, so when we show them double blind clinical tests published in peer reviewed non-homeopathy journals, they say “there are no reputable tests published in prestigious, non-homeopathy peer reviewed journals that show the effects of high dilutes to be no greater than placebo.”
Well, here’s one that was published in an AMA journal.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1998;124:879-885.
Homeopathic vs Conventional
Treatment of Vertigo
A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Clinical Study
Michael Weiser, MB; Wolfgang Strösser, MD, MB; Peter Klein, MS
To this the answer has been “it was discredited.”
In other words, somebody didn’t like it because it compared homeopathic treatment against an allopathic drug without a third set of victims given . . placebo.
But wait a minute . . I thought they said homeopathy was the placebo! Oh, bwahahahahahaha!
[Note the interjection of the word “victim.” How would you like to be somebody’s science project. If PS Myers had have a real problem, do you really think that he would take a chance and be part of the placebo group. This is the main problem with clinical testing, which, if you read on, I shall correct]
Here’s an exhaustive collection of references to homeopathic research in a google knol by Dr. Nancy Malik. . Google it.
Scientific Research in Homeopathy
by Dr. Nancy Malik
Triple Blind studies, Double-Blind Randomised Placebo-Controlled Trial, Systematic Reviews & Meta Analysis, Evidence-based Medicines for specific disease conditions, Ultra-molecular dilutions, Animal Studies, Plant Studies
130+ studies in support of homoeopathy medicine published in 52 peer reviewed international journals out of which 46+ are FULL TEXT which can be downloaded
So we’re answering allopathy’s wild shots with pinpoint accuracy, and they’re going down with the ship, sinking under an epidemic of heart failure, diabetes, cancer . . diseases sufferers could be helped with through homeopathy.
Look, at this point we’re not trying to make assertions about how well homeopathy works, we‘re just trying to show that it does. The problem is that the public is getting that mixed up in their minds. The anti-homeopathy crowd is substituting evidence for how well it works for evidence that it does work. We are avoiding simple decisive tests.
We have extensive records comparing homeopathic with allopathic treatment, both modern (Bracho) and old (Bradford) . . but comparison is a point that should be examined after we see that the substances used in homeopathy have objective indices not found in clinical trials.
Just as no one symptom should be taken alone as the only indicator for which homeopathic remedy should be used, neither should any one test for homeopathy be used to determine its efficacy, and pre-clinical testing should come first in examining homeopathy as a potential clinical modality.
If you’re out in the woods and you’re scrounging around for food and find something that looks palatable but you’re not sure of, you feed it to the dog first. If he doesn’t get sick, then you eat it. That would be a pre-clinical test.
But oh no, the pseudoscientists dive into this subject answers first . . and the questions that support the answer second, without first finding out if these substances have physical, biochemical and biological action.
What the wise will do is first consult the literature on the subject.
This is what James "the Amazing" Randi looks like without his glasses and phony beard, taking my phone call. He accepted my application for his phony "Million Dollar Challenge" 11 years ago and is still running from me to this day!
That brings us to the first real question in this investigation. What do we know of pre-clinical tests for high dilutes?
In 2003 Becker-Witt C, Weibhuhn TER, Ludtke R, Willich SN sought answers to that question in a study entitled, “Quality assessment of physical research in homeopathy” . J Alternative Complementary Med. 2003;9:113–32.
“Objectives: To assess the evidence of published experiments on homeopathic preparations potencies) that target physical properties (i.e., assumed structural changes in solvents).
“Method: A suitable instrument (the Score for Assessment of Physical Experiments on Homeopathy SAPEH]) was developed through consensus procedure: a scale with 8 items covering 0 criteria, based on the 3 constructs, methodology, presentation, and experiment standardization.
“Reviewed publications: Written reports providing at least minimal details on physical experiments with methods to identify structural changes in solvents were collected. These reports were scored when they concerned agitated preparations in a dilution less than 10^23, with no other restrictions. We found 44 publications that included 36 experiments (the identity of 2 was unclear). They were classified into 6 types (dielectric strength, 6; galvanic effects, 5; light absorption, 4; nuclear magnetic resonance [NMR], 18; Raman spectroscopy, 7; black boxes of undisclosed design, 4).
“Results: Most publications were of low quality (SAPEH , 6), only 6 were of high quality
(SAPEH . 7, including 2 points for adequate controls). These report 3 experiments (1 NMR, 2 black boxes), of which 2 claim specific features for homeopathic remedies, as does the only medium-quality experiment with sufficient controls.
“Conclusions: Most physical experiments of homeopathic preparations were performed with inadequate controls or had other serious flaws that prevented any meaningful conclusion. Except\ for those of high quality, all experiments should be repeated using stricter methodology and standardization before they are accepted as indications of special features of homeopathic potencies.”
To summarize, Becker-Witt found six different physical tests for homeopathy. Eight criteria were rated, generating a potential total score of zero to 10. Reports for tests that had scores of six or less were considered to be of low quality, which they said constituted most of them.
Seven trials were found positive results were of high quality. Two out of seven high quality studies claimed distinctive features for homeopathic remedies.
What is important about Witt is she reveals more than one method for finding distinctive features which “science,” inplied by the Myers mindset, says does not exist.
Out of NMR 18 studies, only two were unable to get positive results.
The highest NMR SAPEH scores, went to three studies conducted by one name, Demangeat et al.
Since the 2003 Becker Witt review, Demangeat continued with his NMR investigation
Here is a 2008 report by Demangeat that can be read online.
2008 July 26 Journal of Molecular Liquids, Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81–90
NMR water proton relaxation in unheated and heated ultrahigh aqueous dilutions of histamine: Evidence for an air-dependent supramolecular organization of water
Jean-Louis Demangeat, Nuclear Medicine Department, General Hospital, Haguenau, France
“We measured 20-MHz R1 and R2 water proton NMR relaxation rates in ultrahigh dilutions (range 5.43·10-8 M–5.43·10-48 M) of histamine in water (Hist-W) and in saline (Hist-Sal), prepared by iterative centesimal dilutions under vigorous agitation in controlled atmospheric conditions. Water and saline were similarly and simultaneously treated, as controls. The samples were immediately sealed in the NMR tubes after preparation, and then code-labelled. Six independent series of preparations were performed, representing about 7000 blind
measurements. R2 exhibited a very broad scatter of values in both native histamine dilutions and solvents. No variation in R1 and R2 was observed in the solvents submitted to the iterative dilution/agitation process. By contrast, histamine dilutions exhibited slightly higher R1 values than solvents at low dilution, followed by a slow progressive return to the values of the solvents at high dilution. Unexpectedly, histamine dilutions remained distinguishable from solvents up to ultra high levels of dilution (beyond 10-20 in Hist-Sal). A signi!cant increase in R2 with increased R2/R1was observed in Hist-W. R1 and R2 were linearly correlated in solvents, but uncorrelated in histamine dilutions. After a 10-min heating/cooling cycle of the samples in their sealed NMR tubes (preventing any modi!cation of the chemical composition and gas content), all of the relaxation variations observed as a function of dilution vanished, the R2/R1 ratio and the scatter of the R2 values dropped in all solutions and solvents, and the correlation between R1 and R2 reappeared in the Hist-W samples. All these results pointed to a more organized state of water in the unheated samples, more pronounced in histamine solutions than in solvents, dependent on the level of dilution. It was suggested that stable supramolecular structures, involving nanobubbles of atmospheric gases and highly ordered water around them, were generated during the vigorous mechanical agitation step of the preparation, and destroyed after heating. Histamine molecules might act as nucleation centres, amplifying the phenomenon which was thus detected at high dilution levels.
“These unexpected findings prompted further investigation, notably in other conditions, in order to rule out artefacts, such as possible interactions of silica with the glass material used for the preparation, or possible misinterpretation of the NMRD data due, for instance, to an unknown dependence of the frequency dispersion on the dilution level. So, the present study was carried out at a fixed frequency of 20 MHz and with histamine as solute, beyond the 4th centesimal dilution, i.e. beyond the known threshold of NMR sensitivity to detect histamine protons or any paramagnetic contaminants of the solute. It will be shown that the variations in R1 observed as a function of ultrahigh dilution in the NMRD study  are reproducible with histamine at a fixed frequency, and that these variations totally vanish after heating of the samples.
Here is the most recent and what I think is the best physical test of all:
2009 Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences
Luc MONTAGNIER1,2*, Jamal A¨ISSA1, St´ephane FERRIS1,
Jean-Luc MONTAGNIER1, Claude LAVALL´EE1
1(Nanectis Biotechnologies, S.A. 98 rue Albert Calmette, F78350 Jouy en Josas, France)
2(Vironix LLC, L. Montagnier 40 Central Park South, New York, NY 10019, USA)
Abstract: A novel property of DNA is described: the capacity of some bacterial DNA sequences to induce
electromagnetic waves at high aqueous dilutions. It appears to be a resonance phenomenon triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency waves. The genomic DNA of most pathogenic bacteria contains sequences which are able to generate such signals. This opens the way to the development of highly sensitive detection system for chronic bacterial infections in human and animal diseases. Key words: DNA, electromagnetic signals, bacteria.
Montagnier, being a Nobel laureate, strikes a hard blow for homeopathy, so a lot of pseudonymous posters want to say that Montagnier wasn’t testing the kind of dilutions used in homeopathy.
These criticisms come from pseudoscientists who haven’t read the study carefully enough. The equipment Montagnier used was designed by Benveniste for detecting EM signals in high dilutes.
The Montagnier study is one of the most remarkable scientific studies ever published, for it confirms the Benveniste assertion that homeopathy is a new medical paradigm.
The operative mechanism for homeopathic can be found in clathrate hydrates, nano-crystalline gas inclusion molecules, what Montagnier refers to as aqueous nanostructures. These liquid aqueous structures produce an amplified analog signal of the guest molecule.
Montagnier was able to actually filter them out, and in doing so was able to give them actual physical dimensions.
Once filtered out, the signal stopped.
Read the study, it’s fascinating for these and other anomalies it reveals.
In an article referencing homeopathy (online) entitled “The Memory of Water,” the world’s top authority on water physics, Professor Martin Chaplin, states “water does store and transmit information through its hydrogen bonded network,” once again implying hydrogen bonding as being critical to the homeopathic mechanism.
Exactly what I’ve been saying for years.
John Benneth, self portrait
So here we have two studies that support my hypothesis that the action of homeopathic remedies is electromagnetic and produced by measurable structuring in the solvent, nucleated around clathrates.
Material scientists Roy et al, in their seminal work, . The structure of liquid water; novel insights from materials research; potential relevance to homeopathy. (Roy R, Tiller WA, Bell IR, Hoover MR Materials Research Innovations, 2005; 9-4: 577–608.) confirm polymorphic structuring in water at liquid temperatures as the key to the homeopqthic mechanism.
“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent . .
[YOU ARE NOW READING THE WORLD’s MOST READ HOMEOPATHY BLOG]
“The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”
It is not such a difficult matter to explore this phenomenon, if you’re not PZ Myers, or one the similar horde. If that’s the case, then putting homeopathy to the test becomes impossible.
If you have comet his far in reading this it shows that you have the spirit of inquiry and not take the easy route by fashionably dismissing the evidence. Now that we have looked at the physical tests, let’s take a look at the biological.
Be assured that I’m moving in for the killshot. As tedious as it may seem, it is exploding myths propagated by phony challenges made by people like James “the Amazing” Randi, of whom I’ve included a picture of, sans phony disguise of Darwin like beard and glasses, as I did with my revelation of Myers in a previous blog. This is working up to a challenge to PZ Myers. More specifically, within Myer’s claimed realm of biology, there are more biochemical tests beyond those referred to prior.
After the 2003 review of physical tests, Witt and her team turned their attention to biochemical testing. Here, Myers ought to wake up from his napping.
For the biochemical assessments they used a modified version of the SAPEH test.
Their investigation found six different types of biochemical tests reported for homeopathy: non cellular systems, cultured cells, erythrocytes, neutrophile and basophil granulocytes, and lymphocytes.
(NB: If you think this is tough reading, consider what it’s like to type. But it’s important for this discussion. I haven’t seen this posted anywhere before.)
Witt produced the best and most exhaustive review of the literature for pre-clinical testing of homeopathics.
The WItt review shows that the basophil degranulation test has been done more than any other kind of biochemical test, but nevertheless is still only one type of biochemical testing among six.
Some of the most remarkable biochemical testing was done by William E. Boyd, MD, whose team spent years examining the action of dilute mercuric chloride on starch at Glasgow.
The Boyd experiments were designed by two Barbour scholars and overseen by Professor Sir Gowland Hopkins. The reporting panned 15 years, was extensive and elegant, designed for replication, representing a project that would be cost prohibitive by today’s standards.
Now we’re squarely in the bailiwick of Myers, reportedly an academic biologist who has taken what appears to be a knowledgeable stance on this problem. Neither opponent or proponent would be likely to say that it isn’t a problem.
If you’re looking at this problem objectively, you can see that there is a wide spread in the reported quality of testing results. However, most reporters, like Ennis, conclude there should be more testing.
Where is the prudence in the face of this evidence, of not putting it to the test?
Since 2007, the basophil degranulation test has been done specifically for replication by two of its finest conductors, Sainte Laudy and Belon.
Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.
Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P.
Why is it that someone who comments on this subject as an expert witness, as Myers does, not provided us with a greater examination of the available evidence? If Pee Zee Herman here is the expert he makes himself out to be then why . . with his X-ray vision and the mysterious, supernatural ability to make such definitive conclusions about the awesome psychogenic powers of these homeopathic placebos, WHY does he not enlighten us as with the Holy Protocol for Placebo?
Come on, Jesus of Science, if it truly exists, then give us the Placebo Commandment! Where are the Holy Writs, the double blind studies published in the sacred texts of prestigious peer reviewed journals?
Why is P MYers not conducting his own biological tests, and proving to us, without a grain of prejudice, that homeopathy, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is NOT what the evidence has led many of his misguided colleagues have concluded it to be . . biologically active.
If this is a scientific inquiry and not a political argument, then why is it that so many people are trying to answer a pre-clinical question with clinical evidence?
The Myers mindset isn’t posing a question, it is merely answering an implied one with evidence that will lead the unwitting away from non prejudicial answers.
Let me answer it first philosophically. The anti-homeopathy argument, the infrastructure of which is atheistic, is based on the concept of non-Being. It is a decided feature of solipsistic thinking that has crept its way past the scientific method into science, to change it from science into scientism, from global skepticism into local skepticism, i.e. pseudoscience, that which masquerades as science, but in reality is serving the masters of capital and fashion.
For in order to believe in non-Being, one has to put Parmenidean logic aside. There is no such thing as non-Being. Placebo or not, homeopathy is a reality.
If this isn’t so in this case, then let us see PZ Myers put homeopathy to a simple yet proper biological test:
There is the literature, here are the methods, now let’s see some results!
And if Pee Wee Myers cannot reasonably find biological indices, then let us see him provide us with psychological indices drawn from trials that test for psychogenic effects, trials that show beyond the shadow of a doubt that homeopathy is nothing more than The Placebo Effect, and all the pre-clinical evidence the result of error and lies.
Let me put it more explicitly:
Professor Myers, do these substances, as used in homeopathy, as defined in the literature, have biological action on subjects not influenced by the placebo effect?
Simple question , simple answer that can be determined thorough simple tests. If Myers isn’t purposely avoiding the question and the literature that addresses it, then why isn’t he accepting that literature as evidence of non psychogenic action or why isn’t he submitting these substances to his own superior testing?
PZ Myers will have so much explaining to do, he’ll have to schedule extra classes in Pseudoscience and Advanced Prevarication!
For instance, we have reports from numerous sources, myself included, that have witnessed the phytopathological action of homeopathics on plant growth and diseases. That’s a simple, biological test any school kid can do. So why is it so far beyond the reach of Myers, reportedly a professional biologist?
The problem here that now confronts Myers, in order to meet my challenge, is that he’ll have to fish the evidence out of the looney bin, and if does find an effect, by his own previous criteria, he’s screwed.
Do you understand? Myers has effectively recused himself from obtaining negative results by having shown his bias.
The only way for him to back out of this trap now is to collaborate with others who are experienced in biological testing, such as M. Brizzia; L. Lazzarato; D. Nani; F. Borghini; M. Peruzzi; L. Betti at the Department of Agro-Environmental Science and Technology at Bologna University in Italy, workers who have conducted extensive testing on heat, replicating the exhaustive work of Lilli Kolisko.
Professor Myers, I challenge you to commission a design for a simple biological test, done by people who know what they‘re doing, without having a stage magician with a million dollars to lose handling the key to the double blind, as he did with Benveniste.
Put it to the test. That‘s fair enough. Isn‘t it?
And now for our movie!
Prof. Rustum Roy vs. Steven Novella, the Homeopathy Hater
If you watch carefully you will see that the man standing in the shot as Professor Roy is being introduced is homeopathy basher Steven Novella, a professor of neurology at Yale and the President of the solipsistic New England Skeptical Society. Apparently Novella thought he was going to be introduced next. Watch and listen as Professor Roy takes him down a notch or two . .
In light of evidence, University of Minnesota biology professor PZ Myer’s hate campaign against homeopathy just might backfire .
“High dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.”
Professor Madeleine Ennis after replicating controversial experiment for homeopathy.
One of the last John Benneth Journalentries for 2010 , IN ONE YEAR, has broken all previous viewership records and sparked more commentary and outrage amongst the pharmaceutical company stooges than any previous Journal entry, enlisting the usual fury and nasty responses.
Most notably is PZ Myers, an American biology professor and pharma stooge whose specialty is trashing homeopathic medicine at the University of Minnesota Morris (UMM).
His blog is Pharyngula. In 2006, it was the top-ranked blog written by a pseudo scientist.Myers has called IN ONE YEAR “nonsense.” Other commentary has been”mental straightjacket”and remarks too obscene to be reprinted here.
It follows a posting by Myers of clips of my controversial video, “The Mechanism,” juxtaposed with scenes from Star Trek to characterize my supramolecular description of the homeopathic remedy as techno babble.
My name is John Benneth. I’m a homeopath.And this is story about biologists, three in particular, who have studied . . it.
It is fashionable with atheists and pseudo scientists like Myers to trash it and its research. It is a compulsion. They can’t help themselves. They have to do it, for it puts everything they hold dear at risk.
Trashing it is like a cheap magic trick, hawked as self working and E-Z-2-DO. It gives the trasher the feeling he’s accomplished something for himself under the guise of protecting society from what they characterize as ineffective medicine. But like the cheap magic trick, when it finally arrives in the mail, you realize it was misrepresented.
Pretty good trick . . on you.
PZ Myers, Pseudoscientist
Really what it is, it’s hate speech, using the same kind of tactics used against minorities by hate groups. It really shouldn’t have any place in academia, but pseudoscience has become the infrastructure of higher education.
What can they tell you that you can’t find out for yourself now through the Internet? It’s not really education, it’s fashion.
What Myers says has very little to do with science and more to do with the politics of self aggrandizement.
Look at the case against it: It’s full of general, vague, contextual accusations and insinuations. But try to find within this haystack of lies a needle of truth. It contains more errors of commission and omission than the invasion of Iraq. It doesn’t state its criteria or identify or it sources for verification. It always ends up being exactly what it complains of, and PZ Myers provides us with a wonderful sample of it.
He wastes our time with anecdotal evidence and fails to adequately explain the etiology of the phenomena. If its effects are psychogenic, where are his proofs for psychogenic? If it’s bunk, what mechanism has made it so popular, where is the proof for the reported action? It’s usually nothing more than a sloppy pudding of self contradicting anecdotes.
“EZ Pee Zee,” a pudding of lies.
Science will always turn against the pseudoscientist.
Read on and watch it slowly turn against Myers.
We have heard repeatedly, over and over again, from people like E-Z Pee Zee Puddin’ Myers, that homeopathy doesn‘t work, but when asked “how do you know?” the best they can come up with is that it doesn’t work because it shouldn’t work.
That’s it. That’s all there is to it. Nothing more!
No evidence of biological action is ever admitted without first seeking fault by the homeoapthy hater. Any corroborating tests are conveniently ignored.
I seriously doubt EZ PZ Puddin’ Myers could sustain much of a real explanation of its effects, because somewhere along the way he would have to confront things he didn’t know and doesn’t want to know, because they begin to work against his foregone conclusions.
Criticism by pseudo scientists like Myers is never global. It is always localized against something, like homeopathy. The evidence con is always given greater play over the evidence pro. And it avoids addressing the evidence pro in specificity within the context of explicit criteria.
For instance, the most well known in vitro test for homeopathy is a test on white blood cells, the basophil degranulation test. It was done by renowned immunologist Jacques Benveniste after his criticism of it was challenged. An assistant had found that water exposed to an allergen via serial aqueous dilution, could provoke an in vitro response, as if the allergen were present.
This is called basophil degranulation.
Benveniste, like other investigators, was puzzled by the results. What appeared to be pure water was causing a biochemical reaction.
Benveniste reportedly did the test over 1,000 times.
After he published the results of his testing in Nature, a prestigious science magazine, (to the resounding explosion of the usual outrage) Nature sent a team to investigate Benveniste’s work. The team consisted of Sir John Maddox, the editor of Nature, James “the Amazing” Randi, a notorious illusionist with a large sum of money to lose if proven wrong, and a debunker by the name of Walter Stewart.
According to Dana Ullman, the experiment was first replicated three times for the Nature team without any blinding of the experimenters. These first three experiments performed for the team showed positive results.
The fourth experiment blinded the person doing the counting of the basophils, and the results of this experiment were also successful. But the Nature team deemed this test invalid, claiming that the blinded experimenter knew in advance which test group she was counting.
The Nature team then began to behave disruptively. The next three experiments blinded the person doing the counting and the person doing the pipetting. Randi performed magic tricks during a crucial part of the experiment, making it difficult for the experimenters to perform their work, while Stewart was acting so hysterically that he had to be asked several times to stop shouting by Maddox and Benveniste.
All three of these experiments did not show any difference between the active verum samples and the inert control group. The Nature team immediately deemed that there was no evidence that the microdoses have biological action and reported that the tests failed to show convincing results.
Benveniste had violated the laws of Nature!
What they didn’t report was that the results were just what one would expect if someone switched the active samples with the inert controls.
Some of the samples, coded inert, produced a reaction, whereas some of the samples coded as active were reported inert. A switch had been made.
Randi had sabotaged the test by mixing up the results!
When you’re finished reading here, watch the accompanying video at the end of this article and hear Benveniste describe what happened. And particularly note Maddox, the editor of Nature, confessing that he went to Benveniste’s lab for the sole purpose of discrediting his work as fraudulent.
Skeptics herald this as conclusive proof that homeopathy doesn’t work.
There are some more facts that EZ Pee Zee doesn’t tell you, because without additional information we may be easily led to an incorrect conclusion about in vitro testing for homeopathy . .
What Pee Zee doesn’t tell you is that the basophil degranulation test for homeopathy wasn’t invented by Jacques Benveniste. JB’s test was the fourth replication of it. There have been many replications of it since, most notably a multi centered one that included homeopathy skeptic Professor Madeleine Ennis of the Respiratory Medicine Research Group at The Queen’s University of Belfast.
Here is a mashup of Ennis reporting on the activation of human basophils by ultra-high dilutions of anti-IgE, dilutions of the type used in homeopathy.
ENNIS: “This could be an exceedingly short paper, since in my opinion, from a conventional scientific background, when there are no molecules of the active agent left in a solution there can not be any biological effects. However, a search in PubMed combining homeopathy with basophil revealed 15 items. Interestingly this did not include the now infamous article in Nature or the papers that attempted to repeat the work. Changing the search to homeopath and basophil increased the total to 21. Including phrases such as ‘high dilutions’ or ‘extremely low doses’ only resulted in 33 publications.
“Witt and co-workers used several different databases in their review and found a total of 75 publications and further evaluated 67 of them. One of their sources was the HomBRex database which specialises in basic research in homeopathy and as of February 2009 contained 1301 experiments in 997 original articles including 1172 biological studies. Using the CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) Database and putting in basophil resulted in 95 hits. The question of publication bias is also worth considering – is it easier to publish a paper with negative results or with positive results? Normally, trials or studies with negative results are difficult to publish. However, it is possible that the opposite is true for studies using ultrahigh dilutions.
“In 1988, Poitevin and colleagues published a paper in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology in 1988 which was a follow-up to an earlier paper which had reported that incubation of basophils with high dilutions of the homeopathic drug Apis mellifica was able to inhibit allergen-induced basophil degranulation. In this paper, they reported that very low concentrations of anti-IgE (ca. 10–100 molecules per well) activated basophils and that this was inhibited by very high dilutions of the preparations
“Overall, using the histamine degranulation assays, as standardized by Sainte-Laudy, it was found that histamine at both conventional pharmacological concentrations and at high dilutions inhibited allergen and anti-IgE induced basophil activation. Examining a range of dilutions from 5c to 59c, the response was periodic in form, with maxima at ca. 7c, 17c, 28c, 40c and 52c.”
“This work was pioneered by Sainte-Laudy and colleagues beginning in the 80s and continuing to the present day… I first heard about this work at the 1984 meeting of the European Histamine Research Society where Sainte-Laudy bravely presented his data to a crowd of extremely skeptical and rather hostile scientists and clinicians.
“Apart from the natural scientific objections to solutions containing essentially water having a biological effect, a number of other issues were raised:
(1) the biological validity of the test;
(2) the reproducibility of the phenomenon,’
(3) the subjectivity of cell counts and
(4) that the data nearly all came from the same laboratory. In answer to these points, at that time, this form of examining basophil activation was a recognized procedure. Sainte-Laudy had performed repeated experiments, indeed in a series of 6 experiments he repeated each measurement 16 times and got the same answer.
“In order to answer points (3) and (4), it was decided to perform a multi-centre European Trial and it is at that point that I ‘dipped my toes into the waters’ of homeopathic research. As an ardent sceptic, I was invited to take part in the trial, which involved one coordinating laboratory and laboratories performing the research. This study has been published.
“In brief, all the laboratories were trained in the basophil counting method, with the counts verified by Sainte-Laudy’s laboratory. The dilutions were made in 3 different laboratories and coded by the coordinator (histamine and water solutions made up identically from 15c–19c). All study materials were from the same source and shipped to the performing laboratories. The data were returned to the coordinator and then analysed by an independent biostatistician. When the results for the histamine solutions were compared to those for the water solutions, there was a small but statistically significant inhibition of basophil degranulation caused by the lowest concentration of anti-IgE used in 3 of the 4 laboratories. When all the data were combined together, there was a statistically significant inhibition for the histamine containing solutions. Thus this multi-centre
study indicated that high dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.
“In the multi-centre trial described above, 3 of the laboratories independently examined the effects of high dilutions of histamine and to a varying degree all demonstrated inhibition of basophil activation with these dilutions. Flow cytometric is employed in most immunological laboratories and there have now been a series of independent laboratories investigating the phenomenon. These will be discussed in detail.” Basophil models of homeopathy: a sceptical view, Madeleine Ennis, Respiratory Medicine Research Group, Centre for Infection and Immunity, Microbiology Building, The Queen’s University of Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK
The Witt review of in vitro tests for homeopathy carefully analyzed and scored all known biochemical testing, up until 2007. You don’t see the criteria employed by Witt being employed by those who conclude that homeopathy is merely the use of inert substances.
Like Pee Zee, they have to make up their own, unknown, unseen, OCCULT criteria!
PZ Myers claims to be a biologist. But look at the way Myers approaches the problem before him. Instead of giving you the full story, Myers gives only what he wants you to hear, which is mostly ridicule. Myers doesn’t mention his colleagues who have actually conducted the basophil degranulation test. He hasn’t done it. So how is it that we are supposed to believe Myers over Ennis, Sainte Laudy, Belon, Benveniste and all the others and their staff assistants, and the hundreds, possibly thousands of repetitons of these tests, unless Myers is presenting an answer we want to hear?
I’m trying to think of careers and activities that would be more suited for telling people what they want to hear, other than science. How about politics? LOL! No wonder his blog is so popular! Most people aren’t interested in science for anything more than the status it gives them in the eyes of others.
Being a skeptic gives you that “cachet.”
But when it comes to the real complexities of science . . please! Don’t confuse me with the facts! Let’s just pretend we’re scientists, okay?”
Ennis on the other hand, rolls up her sleeves and gets her hands dirty. She then, as a real scientist, is compelled to truthfully report what her colleagues are loath to hear . . the truth about homeopathy. What was it again? Oh yes . . “high dilutions of histamine did indeed have biological effects.”
I hear Myers screaming when he reads this, holding his head, “Noooo! I hate homeopathy!”
Ennis comes up with the same statement that Benveniste, Poitevin and dozens of others have come up with. In the glass the truth about homeopathy has been found.
Benvneiste proposed a whole new biological paradigm. Does Myers have the courage to do the test? Or is he more likely to try to sabotage it with word and censure?
If Pee Zee Myers cannot be a real scientist and meet the challenge of homeopathy head on, as Professor Ennis and others have done, then I say fire him and let him go on writing his stupid blog as the prime example of pseudoscience. Why would anyone but the opposition want a joker like Myers poisoning the minds of our youth? He doesn’t teach biological science, he teaches political science. Look at his useless, mindless deblogatory activities
How embarrassing for such a fine institution like the University of Minnesota! To have such an unscientific voice as Myers blathering away while his hands are doing nothing useful, when there are real scientists, like young versions of Rustum Roy at Penn State, who could be teaching biology at the University of Minnesota.
Education should not be about destroying people, as PZ has made it out to be. It should be about building people up, not tearing them down, and learning how things work in world.